It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

25% believe moon landings were hoax

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

i agree its not that we didn't go to the moon its what we found there that they are hiding i mean they have showed us pics of the Apollo 11 site so i bleave we landed there just they dont want people to find what they did




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by xenchan`
 


What if the photos of the landing site were c.g.i. Im not saying they are, but with Nasa anything is possible, they're the 2nd biggest liars next to politicians.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
All NASA has to do is say, hey we went but we had to stop going because the military turned it into a black program. End of story. Then it would be the Pentagon's problem on how to answer all the questions about why we stopped going, even if we never stopped going.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The important revelation here is people do not trust their governments.

They have been given good reason NOT to trust them, they are all a bunch of crooks!

Maybe before they decide to go back to the Moon, they should set themselves straight first, learn how to be open, how to let people see information when they want it, how to document what they do so they can PROVE it, etc. All the open, honest disclosure kind of stuff.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by orby1976
What if the photos of the landing site were c.g.i.


Well there are so many threads on this right no its almost impossible to catch them all


So NASA says its a spacecraft and all the little NASA believers run and create a page that says "See? Its not a rock, its proof..." and now they tell me "Oh yeah but this... Yuppers its a SPACECRAFT"



But when Zorgon says "Its an artifact on Eros, and Zorgon's picture is much better resolution than NASA's, those same skeptics say "Its just a rock!!! Your an idiot"



Yet we landed a probe on Eros as well (it crashed really and this is not it, but the Eros artifact looks more like an object that the NASA 'rock with shadow' that they are selling as Landers. Even Phage admits it could be just a rock, except we expect there to be a Lander at this spot.

Isn't it funny how this works when the shoe is on the other foot? "Yup NASA says its a space ship, so it must be true, but your Eros thingy... hell that is just a rock"



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
And UK Intel has done such a good job over the years since 1945.
Well the English are a smart people, they started the language.
And Von Braun was behind the Moon Landings, that must have
been the first clue.
And we had Celts in America B.C., as we now learned, and didn't
help us either.
Perhaps there was too much TV coverage for the rich elite with their
RCA color TV sets that some how now seems impossible.
The rich elite space sham wow show is over.
I mean now there are UFOs everywhere when a space clip is shown.
They would have been crowding the scene for every video feed.
Those brash young men in their Tesla machines.

ED: zorgon what about those 'foot prints' or tire tracks on one
photo. I thought about those 'rolling rocks' on the Moon.


The Moon Road Proof

[edit on 7/19/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 7/19/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 7/19/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So NASA says its a spacecraft and all the little NASA believers run and create a page that says "See? Its not a rock, its proof..." and now they tell me "Oh yeah but this... Yuppers its a SPACECRAFT"

I have to agree with you, the recent photographs aren't compelling evidence of a moon landing. The only picture that showed more than what looked like a rock was the one with the apparent "trail" in it, and even that could have been caused by a boulder rolling around after a meteorite impact.

The thing is, there are so many theories out there:
-we never went to the moon at all, faked the whole thing
-We went to the moon and everything happened exactly as NASA said
-We went to the moon and most things happened as NASA said but they doctored some photos
-We went to the moon and UFO's "warned us off" as Neil Armstrong is rumored to have told some anonymous person at some convention
-We never stopped going to the moon and kept going after the official missions, to secretly build moon bases with defenses against the soviet cosmonauts
-There are bases on the moon but they aren't ours, they are alien bases

I'm sure there are more but you get the idea. With so many theories to choose from, they can't all be true, some are mutually exclusive, so you have to do some detective work to find the truth. Many people seem willing to accept something written on a website without investigating it any further, that's why the percentage of moon landing hoax believers is so high, that plus a distrust of government.

And to the guy who suggested the way to discover the truth is to assume everything you've been told is a lie, that's not actually such a bad philosophy if you apply it to everything you've been told by everyone, then start looking for the real evidence of what's really true and what's not.

For example, if I assume we never went to the moon, then I have to figure out how we started getting data back from the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment right away, and if I can't figure that out then I have to start considering that lack of an alternate explanation as a proof that we did go. So I have to go with that proof instead of the new pictures, but with a 1 meter resolution, I wasn't really expecting to see much, so they are about what I expected.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I don't think they would have broadcast it live because they had no idea of what to expect and that is why I think they probably did land but faked it aswell.Maybe there is something up there they don't want us to see!



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 

nasa had a satellite already in place before apollo 11 took off ... it was for training the ground crew in receiving transmissions from the general direction of the moon.. it doesn't take much thought to think it was used to transmit the pre recorded hoax video and audio from earth back to earth......



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by fatdad
 



...nasa had a satellite already in place before apollo 11 took off ... it was for training the ground crew in receiving transmissions from the general direction of the moon..


NOW you're just making stuff up!!

It really does no one any good for people to come in, drop a load like that, and leave. It is NOT a contribution, it is, in fact, nothing but pure ignorance.

Anyone with even the most basic understanding of how things work can see how ridiculous that entire sentiment is...in all of the craziest "hoaxists" theories, even they know better!!!



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



zorgon, while I don't bristle at being called an "Apollo Hugger", I wish you could clarify for our dear readers your apparent schizophrenic comments, right here in this very thread!!!

Originally posted by zorgon

You guys make the facts fit your program, like the latest rocks with shadow NASA is selling as Apollo hardware


Ummmm.....are you sure you really want to stick your neck out on that, and stand by it, in light of:

Originally posted by zorgon

Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell has said to Robert O. Dean,

"it's not whether or not we went to the moon,
it's what we found on the moon that is the cover-up."


Hmmmm....seems clear to me that Dr. Edgar Mitchell has been to the Moon...I'm guessing, as advertised aboard Apollo??? OR, are you using his statement as your proof, whilst refuting his implications


Origninally posted by zorgon

Look up the secret space program NOVA "Astrospies"

......

Look up Sea Launch a joint Boeing/Energia floating launch platform where countdowns are both Russian and English

......

Look up Two Sides of the Moon: Our Story of the Cold War Space Race: David Scott,(astronaut) Alexei Leonov: (cosmonaut)

......

Even von Braun said Russia has always been our friend... and Jim Oberg testified in congress on Russian/American 'duality'



OK....so, what that only shows is that we MAY have had help??? Just a friendly rivalry, like a 'boy's club' sort of thing (I haven't yet read the book with David Scott, so I'm just guessing). There's no doubt of the relationship today, of course, with the ISS....the International Space Station....

It's just that, in your zealous and clever witty way, I hope you aren't trying to mislead our dear readers....

This one bears a repeat....

You guys make the facts fit your program, like the latest rocks with shadow NASA is selling as Apollo hardware...


Ummm....hello! Mirror, mirror?



[edit on 19 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The 40th anniversary of the first man on the moon lends a memory of spending the day at the beach as a kid and being woken by my parents to witness the historical event. Recently my job has brought me in contact with some folks that were very involved with the Apollo missions and have heard a number of stories from them. One in particular was interesting that I though I would share as we approach the anniversary.

Everything during these missions were scripted including who was to do what, when, where etc. If a switch was to be thrown, it was scripted. If a procedure was to be accomplished, it was scripted.

Well the story goes, Buzz Aldrin was originally supposed to be the first one down the ladder and walk on the moon, scripted of course. Neil Armstrong was the commander and this didn’t sit well with him so he pleaded his case to NASA. He felt that because he was the commander, it should be him to be the first. NASA agreed and changed the scenario, having Neil be the first down the ladder and or course making history. The script had been changed, no secrets, Buzz was aware this was changed.

Well one of the functions Buzz had was to be in charge of shooting the photos while they were on the surface of the moon. When they got back to earth after the mission, NASA reviewed the photo’s and to their surprise there was not one still photo of Neil from when they were on the surface. They asked Buzz why this was and he responded “It wasn’t in the script”.

So there is no still photo of Neil on the surface of the moon. There is video and selected frames from the videos but not one still photo. There is one catch to this, one photo of Buzz close up, shows Neil, as a reflection, in Buzz’s visor. No other still photo to this day, there apparently is no love lost between the two, either.

Peace



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyone with even the most basic understanding of how things work can see how ridiculous that entire sentiment is...in all of the craziest "hoaxists" theories, even they know better!!!


I think he might be referring to this one... but I am sure there was other hardware out there, like the Aquila sent to the Moon two months before A11


TITLE: Launch vehicle flight report - Nasa project Apollo Little Joe 2 qualification test vehicle 12-50-1
Document ID: 19790076764 N (79N76272) File Series: NASA Technical Reports
Report Number: NASA-CR-117547 GDC-63-193
Sales Agency & Price: CASI Hardcopy A07
Authors: (Author(s) Not Available)
Published: Sep 27, 1963
Corporate Source: General Dynamics/Convair (San Diego, CA, United States)
www.apollosaturn.com...



The White Sands Missile Range administrative, range, and technical organizations provided the facilities, resources, and services required. These included range safety, radar and camera tracking, command transmission, real-time data displays, photography, telemetry data acquisition, data reduction, and recovery operations.


en.wikipedia.org...

Hmmm White Sands... same place those LRO images are being 'processed'




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by fatdad
 



...nasa had a satellite already in place before apollo 11 took off ... it was for training the ground crew in receiving transmissions from the general direction of the moon..


NOW you're just making stuff up!!



Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyone with even the most basic understanding of how things work can see how ridiculous that entire sentiment is...in all of the craziest "hoaxists" theories, even they know better!!!


I think he might be referring to this one... but I am sure there was other hardware out there, like the Aquila sent to the Moon two months before A11


TITLE: Launch vehicle flight report - Nasa project Apollo Little Joe 2 qualification test vehicle 12-50-1
www.apollosaturn.com...


Hmmm maybe try again? Look at the trajectory of little Joe II on page 3-2 of this report (that's page 28 of the PDF file):

ntrs.nasa.gov...

The report shows it never went above 32,000 feet.
That wouldn't qualify it as a satellite, would it?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by pale5218
 



Well the story goes,


That put my BS meter into alert mode...


... Buzz Aldrin was originally supposed to be the first one down the ladder and walk on the moon, scripted of course.


Your use of the word "scripted" is unfortunate. "Procedure" or "procedurally" is far better representation.

For instance, if you were watching the NASA channel at all during the latest Shuttle launch scrubs, and finally the successful launch, you'd have heard the 'procedures' that they followed....OK, like a "script"...because there are particular sequences that must be followed in specific order.



...Neil Armstrong was the commander and this didn’t sit well with him so he pleaded his case to NASA


I "heard" this a little differently. In previous missions involving EVAs, (spacewalks) the Commander stayed onboard. Because of the configuration of the LM, it was simply easier for Armstrong to go first. Remember, they were fully suited during the descent and landing...in case of pressure loss on the spacecraft. Because of the layout, it was easiest for the Commander to exit first. In fact, it would be a good bit of research to do if someone looked up for ALL of the Apollo Lunar EVA egress procedures, just who got out first.

Now....what I "heard" and what you "heard"....those are subject to interpretation, I suppose.

BUT, since I brought it up, let's take a look at Apollo 12, and the egress planning:



Apollo 12

Mission statistics

Mission name Apollo 12
**skip**

Apollo 12 was the sixth manned mission in the Apollo program and the second to land on the Moon. The mission was commanded by Charles "Pete" Conrad....

......
Crew
Position Astronaut
Commander Charles Conrad, Jr
Third spaceflight
Command Module Pilot Richard F. Gordon, Jr.
Second spaceflight
Lunar Module Pilot Alan L. Bean
First spaceflight
......

EVA 1 start: November 19, 1969, 11:32:35 UTC
Conrad — EVA 1
Stepped onto Moon: 11:44:22 UTC
LM ingress: 15:27:17 UTC
Bean — EVA 1
Stepped onto Moon: 12:13:50 UTC
LM ingress: 15:14:18 UTC

EVA 1 end: November 19, 15:28:38 UTC
Duration: 3 hours, 56 minutes, 03 seconds

en.wikipedia.org...

Hmmmm.....the Commander exited first, AGAIN!!!

Well, let's check the rest, shall we?

Just to appreviate (you'll can look it up for yourselves)

Apollo 14: Shepard, Cmdr --- Mitchell, LMP....Shepard first.

Apollo 15: Scott, Cmdr --- Irwin, LMP....Scott did a "stand-up" EVA, through the top hatch, for 33 minutes, as a preliminary survey, then back in. The two men later exited for the EVA, exact order not given on Wiki.

Apollo 16: Young, Cmdr --- Duke, LMP....Young is listed first, no specifics on who exited first...but again, because of the layout inside, likely Young.

Apollo 17: Cernan, Cmdr --- Schmidtt, LMP....Again, same as Apollo 15 and 16.

Point is, by 15, the egress was routine...on 11, 12, and 14 there were some time delays between exits. After, they pretty well followed one after the other.

Interior cutaway drawing:




Photo, looking forward at the Flight Station and Commander's Station:




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Nah but there probably was one... I'll dig for it when I have time unless the poster comes back and gives us a linky...

Ya have to excuse weed whacker he shoots off quite easily on poor beginners




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Your use of the word "scripted" is unfortunate. "Procedure" or "procedurally" is far better representation.


But IF it was 'staged' scripted would be more appropriate don't you agree?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pale5218
 



So there is no still photo of Neil on the surface of the moon.


Here's one of Armstrong working near the LM:


Here's one, from the 16mm camera inside the LM:
Armstrong is carrying the TV camera to a different location.


You see, Armstrong had the Hasselblad camera most of the time...that's why there's such a nice shot of Aldrin coming down the ladder. They shared the camera a little...guess it was only in the "script", eh?


[edit on 19 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
This, like all other surveys is a load of cow genitalia, 25% of 1000 people is not 25% of Britain. If they went to a "Madonna is a big hairy gorilla" convention and every said they thought she was would that mean 100% of that countrys population thought she was? no. Rediculous. I reckon less than 5% of this country is stupid enough to buy into the whole "it never happened" regieme.

IMO.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join